Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello Coldcreation

When we see past the 13.7 Gyrs deep field point we would expect to see existing galaxies as we see them near.

This will be the nail on the coffin for the BBT.

But! the BB people will come up with some fantasy theory to explain the observation. They always do.

True, very true.
The James Webb Space Telescope will see further than Hubble, albeit still not without problems. There are very few photons emerging from depths close to the visual horizon. It can still be argued that galaxy formation was quicker than expected after recombination. However, the galaxies than can be tested at say 10 Gyrs in the past are already beginning to show signs that indicate that massive star formation was well underway, if not already completed by the time we picked up the image, heavy metals, indicating that the fusing of hydrogen to helium and so one down the line to heavy elements had already occured.

One of your links included a galaxy (in the lower right side of the ultra deep field plate) that already, in my opinion, put a nail in the coffin. With the James Webb Space Telescope many more will be observed (that is a prediction).

That galaxy has been known for some time now. I was wondering if more have been discovered (I've been offline for a while now). Got any more info on any old galaxies in the baby universe?

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

If you think along the BBT, than you would expect a baby universe a start to it all.

But! thats not the case.

In the future I predict that observations will show that the universe is endless and recycling and not expanding as many have predicted.


Read this link

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmol...ang-Theory.htm

Hubble deep field links

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discove...nks_page.shtml

[HydrogenBond]

One way to explain very early galaxy formation with a BB theory is to have the orginal primordial atom break apart into quantum chunks before inflation. Under those conditons one would not have a single BB but a multitude of mini-BB, all at the same time. This would not only explain how the universe expands uniformly with respect to the galaxies, i.e., each expanding mini BB is giving off energy pressure that pushing all the rest of the mini-BB, but the high pressure energy waves from all the mini-BB, keep the expanding matter of each mini-BB highly contained, while adding turbulance.

The quantum division before inflation occurs analogously to what is observed when particles reach extreme energy. At extreme energy, the mass/energy density of particles is higher than cool temperature particles. If we cool extreme particles they break into multitudes of smaller particles of lower mass/energy. With respect to the primordial atom, it can only exist at limiting temp. If it cools slightly, it breaks into smaller primordial molecular composites (to extend the terminology). Since the uniform expansion of the universe is known to occur at the galaxy level and not at the superstructure level, this would suggest the lowest quanta of primordial composites has subunits at the galaxy level. Their expansion will occur with extreme energy pressure waves coming inward from the exterior, from all the rest of the mini-BB. This will contain the expanding galaxy in limited space, while making turbulence, allowing galaxies and even stars to form in a couple hundred millions years, as is observed.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

One speaks of the BBT as a fact. We must remember its only a theory which has no or very little evidence to support it.

I know its the standard model. God knows how it got to be.

So! There is no early universe.

No evidence to support it.

What we do see in deep field 13.2Gyrs is existing galaxies with high Iron content. Instead of hydrogen and Helium.

This tells us that the universe is much older than the BB predictions.

Also the super clusters that are a few hundred million light yrs across needed over 50 Gyrs to form.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One way to explain very early galaxy formation with a BB theory is to have the orginal primordial atom break apart into quantum chunks before inflation. Under those conditons one would not have a single BB but a multitude of mini-BB, all at the same time. This would not only explain how the universe expands uniformly with respect to the galaxies, i.e., each expanding mini BB is giving off energy pressure that pushing all the rest of the mini-BB, but the high pressure energy waves from all the mini-BB, keep the expanding matter of each mini-BB highly contained, while adding turbulance.

The quantum division before inflation occurs analogously to what is observed when particles reach extreme energy. At extreme energy, the mass/energy density of particles is higher than cool temperature particles. If we cool extreme particles they break into multitudes of smaller particles of lower mass/energy. With respect to the primordial atom, it can only exist at limiting temp. If it cools slightly, it breaks into smaller primordial molecular composites (to extend the terminology). Since the uniform expansion of the universe is known to occur at the galaxy level and not at the superstructure level, this would suggest the lowest quanta of primordial composites has subunits at the galaxy level. Their expansion will occur with extreme energy pressure waves coming inward from the exterior, from all the rest of the mini-BB. This will contain the expanding galaxy in limited space, while making turbulence, allowing galaxies and even stars to form in a couple hundred millions years, as is observed.

One can continue modifying a theory, ad infinitium, to make it homogeneous with observations. It never really works though. The fact of the matter is, theories make predictions. When those predictions turn out to be erroneous (as they have been ever since the inception of the BB, that's why inflation was invented) a theory should be discarded or modified. Modifying theories endlessly, however, serves no purpose (unless it is just a little fine tuning) to anyone.

That by the way goes for any theory: Arp, QSSC, Segal's Chronometric Cosmology and, too, Cold Creation theory (or coldcreation).

Example: Coldcreation makes a very definite prediction. If it turns out otherwise, Coldcreation will be dumped in the trash. I hope the same scientific method would apply to all hypotheses.

Here are two opposing views, the BB prediction and CC predictions:
The results should come in soon if they are not already here.

BB: There is a region near the visible horizon called the redshift desert (or dark ages) where protostar and protogalaxy formation is soon to come, or has only just begun.
(Heavy metals are to be synthesized during main sequence stellar processes, well after the fusing of helium from young hydrogen-burning stars).

CC: Stars and galaxies located on the visible horizon are almost identical to those of the Local Group (the cluster of galaxies including our Milky Way). Certainly matallicity increases with time t, thus, 15 Gyrs ago there were fewer heavy elements (the difference is almost insignificant). Galaxies are therefore well formed, including all catagories, spirals, barred spirals, bar galaxies etc. (some of which take several Gyrs to form), with high metallicity from stellar fusion, white dwarfs and supernovea that have spread debrie into interstellar and intergalactic space. Both should be detectable.

Note that there is galactic formation locally, viz the Magellan Clouds, so there will be galaxy formation at great distance too. The key is to look for old, metal rich objects that can be used as clocks (some have been located already). If we find a galaxy that is 10 Gyrs old and is 10 Gyrs away, then the universe is at least 20 Gyrs old.

My own feeling is that the universe has no age. Galaxies at great distances should have old globular clusters with stellar elements that are 18 to 20 Gyrs old, just as the Milky Way does.

More to come, i.e., other prediction for coroboration, soon.

Gotta run.......

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

My own feeling is that the universe has no age. Galaxies at great distances should have old globular clusters with stellar elements that are 18 to 20 Gyrs old, just as the Milky Way does

I agree with that.

Some of those giant super clusters would take over 100 Gyrs to form. If not more.

The BB people somehow are in the mind set that the universe is 13.7 Gyrs.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello Coldcreation

I agree with that.

Some of those giant super clusters would take over 100 Gyrs to form. If not more.

The BB people somehow are in the mind set that the universe is 13.7 Gyrs.

Very true. According to my calculations, the observed superstructures along with the light and heavy metal abundances (too observed) would take anywhere from 250 to 600Gyrs to form.

Note that this hypothesis exclude the creation of elements and their isotopes primordially. That is there was no bang a very short time ago from which would sprouted the right quantities of material. The universe evolves like most things, very slowly.

We have stars in our own Milky Way that are older than 15Gyrs. In fact some of the ages older stellar components of globular cluster toward the center of the Galaxy were, a while back, estimated between 15 and 18Gyrs (probably an under estimation, the true figure should be around 20 to 25Gyr, possibly much more, say between 25 and 35Gyrs).

Even the lower estimate of 15Gyrs blows away the modern cosmology version of universal evolution, with its young age of 13.7.

Note also that the 1998 observation of the SNla to determine the rate of expansion placed the age of the universe at around 12Gyrs.

Several parameters had to be severely tweaked in order to make sure the universe was older than some of its components: notably, non-baryonic dark matter (supposedly composed of something unobservable, not electron, protons or neutrons) and the infamous dark energy (the combined total; 96% or so of the total mass-energy density of the universe).

Mainstream science has invented something more ponderous that itself.

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello All


Well coldcreation,,,,,,,,,,,,,I agree with you.

Good to see people with a level head.

As for the total mass of the universe,,,,,,,,,,its endless.

So! tell me more.

What do you think of Plasma?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello All


Well coldcreation,,,,,,,,,,,,,I agree with you.

Good to see people with a level head.

As for the total mass of the universe,,,,,,,,,,its endless.

So! tell me more.

What do you think of Plasma?

The mass-energy density of the universe is obviously unknown. What can be measured to some extent is that figure with regards to the visible universe. Beyond that, one has to know the history of the universe (which depends on the model). Certainly according to the mainstream, that figure is very low (with or without 'dark' stuff) because the universe is not much larger than what is observed at the present time.

Interestingly Quasi-steady state cosmology QSSC has an infinite universe with galaxies streching as far as one can ponder, then some. There was no first galaxy from what I understand.

Plasma is cool. But I would image that gravity is the long-range force that determines how the universe evolves on the large-scale. That is not the case in plasma cosmology. Locally, within our Local Group, it certainly is gravity that controls structures like the galaxy cluster, galaxies, planetary systems, so why not the rest of the universe. If I recall, electromagnetism is the main factor in plasma theory.

I do believe the universe is infinite in spatiotemporal extent.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation

you said

Plasma is cool. But I would image that gravity is the long-range force that determines how the universe evolves on the large-scale. That is not the case in plasma cosmology. Locally, within our Local Group, it certainly is gravity that controls structures like the galaxy cluster, galaxies, planetary systems, so why not the rest of the universe. If I recall, electromagnetism is the main factor in plasma theory.

Get to know more on plasma.
DownloadPapers

Plasma Cosmology

Plasma Physics and Astrophysics Research Papers and Proposals


Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies
Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND
TPU Intro

Extragalactic Astronomy
Centre for Interdisciplinary Plasma Science


Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
ESA Science & Technology: Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

30-Jun-06
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
News and Views From The Electric Universe


Most of the universe is plasma in one form or another. Plasma is the way to go in understanding the universe. This does not mean you do not consider gravity and electromagnetic forces.

So many people missunderstand what plasma is. Its not just an ion gas composite.